(PC) Mays v. County of Sacramento

1 || Aaron J. Fischer (SBN 247391) Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (SBN Aaron.Fischer @ disabilityrightsca.org 220934) || Anne Hadreas (SBN 253377) [email protected] anne.hadreas @ disabilityrightsca.org Mark A. Zambarda (SBN 314808) | DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA mzambarda @cooley.com 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Addison M. Litton (SBN 305374) ||Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected] Telephone: (510) 267-1200 COOLEY LLP || Fax: (510) 267-1201 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 || Tifanei Ressl-Moyer (SBN 319721) Telephone: (650) 843-5000 tifanei.ressl-moyer @ disabilityrightsca.org Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 || DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1831 K Street Attorneys for Plaintiffs ||Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 504-5800 || Fax: (916) 504-5801 ||Donald Specter (SBN 83925) dspecter @prisonlaw.com ||Margot Mendelson (SBN 268583) mmendelson @ prisonlaw.com ||Sophie Hart (SBN 321663) sophieh @ prisonlaw.coom || PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street || Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 || Fax: (510) 280-2704 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SACRAMENTO DIVISION || LORENZO MAYS, RICKY ) Case No. 2:18-cv-02081 TLN KIN RICHARDSON, JENNIFER BOTHUN, | ) || ARMANI LEE, LEERTESE BEIRGE, __) CLASS ACTION and CODY GARLAND, on behalf of ) || themselves and all others similarly ) FINDINGS AND situated, ) RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 22 ) APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY Plaintiffs, ) APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE AND 23 ) CLASS NOTICE V. ) 24 ) 35 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant. ) 26 ) ) | 1 Plaintiffs in this action, Lorenzo Mays, Ricky Richardson, Jennifer Bothun, Armani || Lee, Leertese Beirge, Cody Garland, and a class of all people who are now, or in the future || will be, incarcerated in the Sacramento County jails (“the Jails”), and a subclass of all people || who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Sacramento County jails and who || have a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102, 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), and || California Government Code § 12926() and (m), allege that conditions in the Jails violate || the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Americans || with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to injunctive relief to address || their claims.

10 The parties have entered into a Consent Decree that was filed with their Stipulated || Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class, which would || settle all claims in this case. The parties have submitted a proposed notice to the class. This |} Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and has reviewed all || of the pleadings, records, and papers on file. The Court has reviewed the Stipulated Motion || for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class along with the Consent || Decree and supporting documents and has considered the parties’ arguments concerning the || proposed settlement of this class action. The Court has determined that inquiry should be || made regarding the fairness and adequacy of this proposed settlement.

19 Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED AS || FOLLOWS: 21 1. A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it “appears to || be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, || does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the || class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 || F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court || finds that this standard is met in this case, as the proposed settlement is the product of arms- || length, serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and || knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.

1 2. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) are met || because this action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against policies and practices that || risk harm and discriminatory treatment to the class.

4 3. The Court finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. || § 3626(a)(1). The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary approval and || incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class members to challenge the || fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Consent Decree.

8 4. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the || substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the || “Notice’’) filed by the parties and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the Notice || meets all due process and other legal requirements and is the best notice practicable under || the circumstances. Within three days of the adoption of these Findings and |} Recommendations, the parties are directed to prepare a final version of the Notice, || incorporating the dates set forth herein.

15 5. No later than September 9, 2019, the County is directed to post the Notice in || English and Spanish in all housing units in such a manner as to make the notice visible to all || people incarcerated in the Jails. The County shall hand deliver a copy of the Notice to each || inmate in administrative segregation. The Notice shall be posted and delivered for thirty |) days.

20 6. The County is also directed to provide a copy of this Order and the full || Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan to people who complete an inmate request form and || request the documents. Defendant must file and serve on Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration || affirming that notice was published as required in this order.

24 7. A fairness hearing shall take place at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 5, || 2019, Courtroom #25, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of || California, Sacramento Division, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, to determine whether || the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the || Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the || Court. The hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice to the class.

2 || Any further briefing from the parties in advance of the hearing shall be filed no later than || November 12, 2019.

4 8. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf in || this action through that class member’s own attorney (at their own expense), but need not do || so. Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be || represented by class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write to the Court || about whether the settlement is fair. The County will provide all people incarcerated in the || Jails with a cost-free way to write to the Court.

10 9. The Court will consider written communications when deciding whether to || approve the settlement. Comments regarding the fairness of the settlement must include at || the top of the first page the case name (Mays v. County of Sacramento) and the case number || (E.D. Cal. No. 2:18-cv-02081 TLN KJN). A written comment must contain the author’s full || name and must include all objections and the reasons for them, must include any and all || supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs, written evidence, and || declarations), and must be signed by the class member. A class member who desires to |} comment but who fails to comply with the above objection procedure and timeline shall be || deemed to have not objected and the objection shall not be heard or considered at the || hearing. Comments must be postmarked by October 11, 2019, and must be sent to the || following address: 71 Clerk of the Court 7 United States District Court I Street 23 Sacramento, CA 95814 24 The Notice to Class members shall highlight the deadline, October 11, 2019, by which || comments must be postmarked.

26 Objection Period 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after || being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with || the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed || and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to || file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

6 || Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7 The parties are advised that if they do not object to these recommendations, each counsel || shall file a statement of non-opposition or statement of no objections, to shorten the objection period || and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the district court.

10 || Dated: August 8, 2019 Arse A Abar 12 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 /mays208 1 set.app